Remember in 2017 when President Trump pressed then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions into opening a Special Counsel investigation into Hillary Clinton? Sessions declined. Instead, in November 2017, he appointed U.S. Attorney John Huber of Utah to look into the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s use of a private server as Secretary of State, possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation, and Clinton’s involvement in the sale of Uranium One to Russian state-owned nuclear corporation Rosatom.
Sessions requested that Huber perform a review of these matters to determine if a Special Counsel investigation was warranted. Sessions wrote:
Your recommendations should include whether any matters not currently under investigation warrants the opening of an investigation, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources or further investigation, and whether any matters would merit the appointment of a Special Counsel.
And then we never heard another word from John Huber.
According to The Washington Post, “current and former officials said that Huber has largely finished and found nothing worth pursuing — though the assignment has not formally ended and no official notice has been sent to the Justice Department or to lawmakers.”
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, who had testified in a December 2018 hearing on the case, responded to the news by tweet. “DOJ non investigation results in non prosecutions? No surprise. DOJ has NEVER stopped defending Hillary Clinton’s email misconduct. @JudicialWatch faced six DOJ and State Dept attorneys in fed court last month who were trying to shut down our Clinton email case.”
Why would Fitton call this a non-investigation? It appears that Huber shirked his duties and did not perform much of a review or perhaps any review at all.
In December 2018, thirteen months after Sessions asked for Huber’s assistance, the House Oversight Subcommittee on Government Operations held a hearing which was led by the committee’s chair, Rep. Mark Meadows, (R-NC).
There were three notable takeaways from this hearing.
First, Huber did not attend. At the beginning of the hearing, Meadows said, “Mr. Huber was asked to join us this afternoon and update the committee on the operations and progress of his investigation, and unfortunately, DOJ has been unwilling to make him available. I find this not only frustrating for me, but frustrating for the American people.” Very strange.
Next, it appears that neither Huber nor members of his team bothered to review any of the 6,000 pages of information sent to them by the whistleblowers. In the first video below, which is teed up at 3:10:15, Mark Meadows questions two Clinton Foundation whistleblowers, Lawrence Doyle of DM Income Advisors (Managing Partner, Foundations & Political Influence) and John Moynihan of JFM Associates (Compliance Advisory Firm, Principal).
Note: The hearing had originally been scheduled for December 5, 2018, but was pushed out a week due to the funeral for President George H. W. Bush.
On November 30th, five days prior to the originally scheduled date for the hearing, Doyle and Moynihan received a call from Huber’s office saying that they could not locate the documents which contained their evidence. The documents had already been submitted twice. The men sent them a third time.
Rep. Meadows: Why do you think Mr. Huber waited until November 30th to call you about four letters you had sent prior?
Mr. Moynihan: I don’t know.
Rep. Meadows: Do you think it might have had to do with you coming here to testify…They were fully aware because we had asked them to come and be a witness at this particular hearing. Then all of the sudden you get a phone call from what, Mr. Huber’s second in command. Is that correct?
Mr. Moynihan: He was clearly the assistant US Attorney dealing directly with Mr. Huber.
Rep. Meadows: Well I find it just very coincidental that on November 30th, a few days before the hearing, after we notified them that we wanted them to come testify that all of the sudden they would start following up. So, Mr. Doyle, what did they say about the documents that you had provided them?
Rep. Meadows: So you’re telling me that on November 30th they called you back and they couldn’t find the first two submissions you had made to the Department of Justice and Mr. Huber? That they wanted you to send them again? That’s what you’re telling me?
Mr. Doyle: We’re concluding that ourselves. That’s what we’re concluding.
Finally, there was another inexplicable turn of events. Meadows asked Doyle and Moynihan to turn over the 6,000 pages of documents to his committee and they flatly refused. In the second video below, which is teed up at 2:45:45, Meadows is losing his patience with the men. (If one happened to be a conspiracy theorist, one might wonder why the whistleblowers chose not to cooperate with Rep. Meadows’ committee. At one time, the men had been interested in justice.)
As they finish speaking with their attorneys, Meadows speaks:
Rep. Meadows: If you’re not going to share your information with this Committee, my patience is running out.
Mr. Moynihan: We will not be providing those materials.
Rep. Meadows: We will compel you to bring all those documents to this Committee then…let me just tell you, this is a hearing to get to the truth and what you’re saying is that you’re all about the truth, Mr. Moynihan..if you’re all about the truth then why aren’t you willing to give us the documents?
Why not, indeed?